While the game itself is fun and entertaining I'm not happy with appearance/performance issues, not to mention all the annoying hoops they make you jump through to get this game up and running. Being a bit a GTA fan I'm disappointed and hoping R* can get a patch out shortly to address these issues otherwise this may well be the last R* game I purchase.

It would be nice if reviewers used a mostly similar computer to test games. Hopefully the end user would end up with a better idea of what to expect when buying games

I don't see such a system working, nor do I think it would be a good idea. However, I do think that performance is a valid factor for rating a game. Games like Crysis and GTA4 have garnered great reviews despite considerable performance issues and I don't think that's right. But it's also important to make sure that gameplay remains the most important factor, especially as those with top-end systems don't (except in rare cases) have to worry about performance and therefore such reviews would be inaccurate.

I believe that reviewers should assess the game on several computers of varying specs and list them with the review along with a summary of the experience. The primary review should still be done on a high spec machine in order to properly assess the gameplay but if it performs poorly on lower spec machines then that should be mentioned and considered.

hmm, when you said this it sparked an idea in my head. Reviewing games across so many hardware platforms is going to yield vastly different results.

I wonder if PC gaming would benefit from a standard set of components for game review computers? Instead of having to list out the components that each reviewer has just stick with a standard setup that is agreed upon each year. And hopefully not the most cutting edge gear would be used.

That is one of the more frustrating things about PC gaming for me, I have no desire to buy the newest hardware to play PC games so for me the ideal system would be using hardware at least a year old.

Valve does those data gathering things and shows the most popular components. It would be nice if reviewers used a mostly similar computer to test games. Hopefully the end user would end up with a better idea of what to expect when buying games?

I'm not sure how much of a resource hog GFWL is, but I really don't think it has any impact on GTA4's poor performance. Fallout 3 and Kane & Lynch both have GFWL, and their performance is fine (although Fallout 3 has performance issues for some people, it doesn't appear to be GFWL related).

The impact on performance from GFWL is minimal at most, but it's the lack of fluidity that makes it stand out like a sore thumb.The game has 2 social-type systems running at the same time (RGSC can go up to 60mb memory usage) with absolutely NO benefit.Without either of the two it would be easy to access multiplayer exactly the same way.To upload shit to RGSC you could just do it like youtube, without the use of a resource-eating program. People seem to have absolutely no issues using a system like youtube.

It's just pointless for them to have all this goddam clutter attached to their game.In order to run RGSC you need to have SP3 (or do the registry fix), and .NET framework 3.5. Then it also loads a fucking Vista font for both programs that takes up 6500k of memory. WHY do we have to use a different font in the first place?It's so goddam stupid.

The game itself doesn't require all those things to be running or installed in order for it play, so let us fucking play without them.. without the extreme hastle.

PS. Since GFWL was all screwed up and wouldn't let me log in to play the game, I had to make an offline account to play SP.Now that Multiplayer actually works, I wanted to try it.Well now I have 2 accounts, one with my SP saved games and one with absolutely nothing (online).Problem is, having an online account records achievements as well as gets you more perks like clothes if you progress in the single player.This means I have to replay the game from the beginning on my online account.edit: or I'll find a way to overwrite my online saves with my offline

I doubt anyone associated with putting GFWL and RGSC as mandatory programs with GTA4 could actually believe that they were proving gamers with a better and more user-friendly experience.Then again, peoples idiocy in general continues to astound me.

I'm not sure how much of a resource hog GFWL is, but I really don't think it has any impact on GTA4's poor performance. Fallout 3 and Kane & Lynch both have GFWL, and their performance is fine (although Fallout 3 has performance issues for some people, it doesn't appear to be GFWL related). I know it's popular to bash Microsoft, but I don't think they are directly to blame in this case. Even blaming Microsoft for GTA4 lacking standard gamepad support is somewhat misplaced; it's not like Windows games required standard gamepad support in the past - it was up to the devs then, and it's up to the devs now (GFW isn't preventing devs from including standard gamepad support). Honestly, if GFW didn't exist, I wouldn't be at all surprised to still see most games only supporting the Xbox gamepad. If devs don't want to make a really good port, they don't need lax certification standards to justify a lackluster effort.

Why oh-why would a GFW(L) title be spo crappy? Because R* can't code for pc's? No....their engines have always been stable (appart from the minority of people who usually have knock-off parts, badly installed/maintained pc's who run Kazaa, MSN and bottorrent at the same time as playing the game, all off one HDD which also has the pagefile!) and scalable, ever since GTA through GTA3/VC and GTA:SA.

And now, their game starts on xbox360, waits a year to come to the pc and...doesn't run very well with almost all the things MS says you should buy a console to avoid?

Think about it: an AAA title debuts on the 360. Where do you really think MS would want you to play it on...their 360 or a pc running windows (which most users would have anyway for general websurfing and office work)? What would add to MS' revenue stream?

And let's not forget GfWL's awesome pedigree, from GoW pc (only the .exe whioch stripped gfwl worked on my pc! Way to lose $50 for no multiplayer!) and others...gfwl is a malfunctioning resourcehog with no place on the pc.

That's actually not a PC bug, but a Renderware engine bug that occurs if you drive too fast. The engine just can't draw some things fast enough, but there is a hitbox (no walk box, whatever) on that location that you're crashing into.

I ALWAYS fucking crash into those goddamn concrete barriers on the fucking bridge when being chased by NOOSE.

Not defending the fact it happens in any way, but it's not a PC issue. My 360 version has the exact same thing.

True enough. But unlike the previous controversies that helped them essentially sell the game, the Hot Coffee thing killed them. Their stocks really took a tumble, and they got way more bad press than good. They are blamed (and probably rightly so) for the new wave of crusading anti-game legislators. Their reputation has been permanently sullied.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” - Mahatma Gandhi

I was about to buy the game through steam on friday but thank god I noticed this news item on bluesnews... Now I will be holding off and see if Rockstar gets off their ass and turn the game into version a normal customer expects at release. Especially with game of this mangintude. Maybe if they spent less time worrying about protection and actually making the game run on PC...